United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS'
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Robert Beal filed the instant complaint alleging the
. Count I: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim
against Defendant Officer Brian Wojtowicz for excessive force
in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
. Count II: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim
against Defendant Wojtowicz for false arrest in violation of
the Fourth Amendment;
. Count III: a claim for false
arrest/imprisonment under Michigan law;
. Count IV: a malicious prosecution claim
under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2907;
. Count V: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for
. Count VI: a claim that Defendant City of
Taylor violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights by failing
to adequately train and/or supervise its police officers,
purportedly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and
. Count VII: a gross negligence claim under
Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407(2).
(Dkt. # 1.)
I, II, V, and VI allege federal claims over which the court
has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Counts III, IV, and VII are state-law claims. Because
Plaintiffs state and federal law claims arise out of the same
incident and share a common nucleus of operative fact, the
court could exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
However, because an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction
would not promote judicial economy, the convenience of the
parties, fairness, or comity, the court will dismiss the
state law claims without prejudice.
complaint alleges the following facts. On March 11, 2015,
Plaintiff was pulled over by Defendant Officer Wojtowicz
while she was driving into her apartment complex. Plaintiff
demanded to know why she had been pulled over, and an
argument between Plaintiff and Defendant Wojetowicz ensued.
Wojtowicz ordered Plaintiff out of the car, and Plaintiff
complied. Defendant then took her to the rear of his vehicle,
out of sight of Plaintiff's passenger and Defendant's
dash cam, where Defendant handcuffed Plaintiff. Defendant
then “proceeded to slam Plaintiff . . . off of his
vehicle” [sic] ad hit her, and “slammed
Plaintiff's head off the trunk of his vehicle” all
while Plaintiff remained handcuffed. Defendant then arrested
Plaintiff for resisting an officer, obstructing a criminal
investigation, driving with ...